Dangers of re-enacted budget: It creates 'Jocjoc's' in gov't

After almost three years of successfully evading the Senate’s grilling on the P728 million fertilizer fund scam, former Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante who was deported back to the country finally faced the music, so to speak. But, as the feisty Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago blurted out in her usual colorful language, Bolante’s testimony before the Senate hearing on the fertilizer fund scam yesterday was nothing but a recital of “barefaced lies.”

Bolante did not “sing” enough to titillate the audience, particularly the Senators who waited that long for him to spill the beans on who were behind him in carrying out this scandalous distribution of fertilizer funds to 105 congressmen, 53 governors and 26 municipal mayors a few months before the May 2004 presidential elections. One after the other, the Senators were one in making blunt remarks during the hearing yesterday that Bolante was lying through his teeth.

Obviously, Bolante was ready with a well-written script. He blamed everyone else except himself for the mis-use of the P728 million for the procurement of “over-priced” fertilizer taken out of the annual budget of the Agricultural and Fishery Modernization Act (AFMA). In his soft-spoken testimony at the Senate, Bolante tried but he obviously failed to impress the Senators in dissociating himself from the alleged anomalies that went into the procurement and distribution of fertilizer funds.

The Senators could not believe that a mere under-secretary could be so “very powerful” to be able to get the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to release to the DA such a huge amount without the imprimatur no less of the Office of the President. Bolante testified that then DA Secretary Cito Lorenzo endorsed to the DBM his request for the release of this amount from AFMA’s allocation under the re-enacted 2003 budget as legal basis for the distribution of fertilizer funds to selected pro-administration congressmen, governors and mayors.

Who selected the recipients for the fertilizer funds? This was the next most asked question during the Senate hearing yesterday. Bolante did not give a clear answer except repeatedly telling the Senators he merely based his “list” of recipients on those who have pending requests to his office. In fact, he added, the funds were not enough to cover the many requests that his office received.

No matter how some of the Senators tried to make him pin down President Arroyo and her husband, First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, Bolante consistently cleared them of any complicity to the fertilizer fund scam. Under oath, Bolante assumed all responsibility for being the one who was able to secure the release of the P728 million out of the P2- or P3-billion allocation of AFMA for the year. How was he able to do it? Simple.

Bolante testified that he merely used the continuing authority under the re-enacted budget of 2003 — the funds that became “savings” under the AFMA allocated with the DA as implementing agency. This was after Congress failed to pass the Palace-proposed 2004 budget and thus, the automatic appropriation of the previous year’s budget provision of the Constitution applied.

If memory serves me right, there was so much bitter debate in Congress about fears and concerns that the Palace 2004 budget bill was actually an election budget. Hence, it turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. What was originally intended to be prevented became the dreaded reality. It gave the opportunity for finance geniuses in the government like Bolante to tap into government coffers.

As Bolante rightly cited, a re-enacted budget allows government agencies to use their funds as a continuing allocation. Hopefully, our lawmakers would find this as the moral lesson for them to ensure the passage into law of the budget bill to prevent a repeat of this nasty habit of financial engineers among our government officials.

While saying he did not release a single centavo of the fertilizer funds to the congressmen, governors and mayors, Bolante claimed the funds were given to the local government units (LGUs) as the “project implementers.” It was a good thing that Sen. Chiz Escudero, son of former Agriculture Minister and now Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero, noted the weak point of Bolante’s argument. Apparently coached to him by his father, Chiz pointed to Section 23 of AFMA under Republic Act 9206 that requires the DA to release funds from AFMA to rural banks or rural cooperatives and not directly to LGUs.

Apparently cornered, Bolante suddenly remembered it was 12 noon already and he had to take his anti-ulcer medicine. Chiz could not help but wisecrack that perhaps Bolante’s medicine would help improve his memory loss. Such wisecracks eased a bit the long and tedious Senate hearing.

Bolante was able to gingerly go around the other searching questions of the Senators. This, he did, without even invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Some of the questions raised during the almost ten hours-long of hearing were kind of repetitive already because some of the Senators came late.  

Perhaps by now Bolante has realized the folly of his acts that got him unnecessarily jailed in the US for visa violations. In his attempt to evade prosecution here for alleged graft and other anomalies he was charged with in various Philippine courts, he had deprived himself of his day in court. If he really believed he has done nothing illegal, Bolante could have made himself available to the Senate inquiry on this scandal.

Also at the Senate hearing yesterday, Bolante revealed supposed “death threats” on him and members of his family that compelled him to seek political asylum in the US, among other fears he cited in his petition to fight his deportation. He, however, refused to elaborate except with an offer to give the details only under “executive session” behind closed-doors with the Senators. Thus, Bolante even got the Senators to approve yesterday his request to be placed under the Senate’s “protective custody” for his own safety and security while cooperating with the Senate’s re-opening of their probe on this case.

 And so, we taxpayers have to pay for Bolante’s “protective custody,” courtesy of the Senate, until his next testimony before them.